Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
Proposal
Lower Kootenai River Watershed
February 7, 2011
Executive Summary
Dominant forest type(s): The dominant forest types (about 50%) are moist, cedar and hemlock habitat
types, followed by subalpine forests (37%) and dry forests (13%).
Total acreage of the landscape: 800,000 (413,000 NFS)
Total acreage to receive treatment: 39,430
Total number of NEPA ready acres: 8,150
Total number of acres in NEPA process: 3,350
Description of the most significant restoration needs and actions on the landscape: The most
significant restoration needs are wildlife habitat, water quality and forest composition to improve
resiliency and restore landscape function. These needs are consistent with the Idaho Statewide Forest
Resource Assessment.
Description of the highest priority desired outcomes of the project at the end of the 10 year period:
The treatment activities proposed here will improve water quality, wildlife habitat, improve economic
opportunities for local communities and landscape resistance to severe wildfire, insects, disease and the
effects of climate change.
Description of the most significant utilization opportunities linked to this project: Utilization
opportunities are largely by-products of restoration efforts but will include ample commercial timber to
sustain and enhance the local economy including a significant amount of biomass material.
Name of the National Forest, collaborative groups, and other major partner categories involved in
project development: Idaho Panhandle National Forests. The Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI)
is the local collaborative with broad membership and partners including the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho,
Boundary County, City of Bonners Ferry, private citizens, landowners, federal and state agencies,
conservation/environmental advocacy groups, and representatives of business and industry.
Describe the community benefit including number and types of jobs created: Altogether, the
proposed CFLRP funding would support a total of 144 jobs (including direct funding support for 86 jobs)
and provide $4.5 million in labor income. Approximately 52 of the 86 jobs directly supported by the
funding would be full-time positions, 8.6 jobs would be part-time and 26 would be seasonal.
Total dollar amount requested in FY11: $323,539
Total dollar amount requested for life of project: $12,272,443
Total dollar amount provided as Forest Service match in FY11: $234,525
Total dollar amount provided as Forest Service match for life of project: $7,287,700
Total dollar amount provided in Partnership Match in FY11: $83,000
Total dollar amount provided in Partnership Match for life of project: $2,370,456
Total in-kind amount provided in Partnership Match in FY11: $10,301
Total in-kind amount provided in Partnership Match for life of project: $313,616
Time frame for the project (from start to finish): FY2011 – FY2020
Table of Contents
Ecological, Social and Economic Context………………………………………………………………………………..…1
Summary of Landscape Strategy………………………………………………………………………………………….……5
Proposed Treatment….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..7
Collaboration and Multi-party Monitoring…………………………………………………………………………….…12
Utilization……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…15
Benefits to Local Economies…………………………………………………………………………………………………....17
Funding Plan…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...18
Attachments
Attachment A: Planned Accomplishment Table
Attachment B:
o Reduction of Related Wildfire Management Costs
o Results- Cost Savings of R-CAT Spreadsheet
o Documentation of Assumptions and Data Sources Used When Populating the RCAT Spreadsheet
Attachment C: Members of the Collaborative Table
Attachment D: Letter of Commitment
Attachment E: Predicted Jobs Table from TREAT Spreadsheet
Attachment F: Funding Estimates
Attachment G: Maps
KVRI Lower Kootenai River Watershed CFLRP Proposal
Page 1
Ecological, Social and Economic Context
This Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (hereafter referred to as KVRI) Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration Project (CFLRP) proposal is focused on the lower Kootenai River
watershed of north Idaho. The area encompasses 800,000 acres in Boundary County, including
more than 400,000 acres of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests. This unique area extends
from the high crest of the rugged Selkirk Mountains to the Cabinet and Purcell Mountains that
straddle Idaho and Montana. It is renowned for its remote forest settings and its steep, highrelief watersheds that drain out of the Selkirks into the low elevation Kootenai River Valley, and
then flow north toward Kootenay Lake in Canada. Visitors from around the world come to this
area to enjoy the rugged beauty and the diversity of wildlife including many threatened and
endangered species such as caribou, grizzly bear, burbot, bull trout and lynx. This is one of the
very few landscapes in the contiguous United States where virtually all of the wildlife species
that were present at the time of Columbus are still present. The lower Kootenai River
watershed with its diversity of high alpine peaks, forests and the area’s unique peatlands, also
provides drinking water to local communities.
Most of the proposed project area lies within Boundary County where land ownerships are 61%
federal, 26% private, 13% state and less than 1% city and county. The mountainous areas
surrounding Boundary County’s communities are primarily National Forest System (NFS) lands
with Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) ownership
scattered throughout. Most of the valley lands are privately owned with some state, federal
and conservation group ownership.
The need for holistic ecological restoration across all lands in the lower Kootenai River
watershed has been evident for years. Over the past decade numerous agencies and
communities, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and non-governmental organizations have worked
together to undertake joint and individual restoration projects to address water quality and
wildlife habitat issues, community wildfire protection and forest restoration in the area. These
projects have crossed tribal, state, private and federal lands. This KVRI CFLRA proposal is
focused on national forest system land restoration and represents the final piece of the puzzle
in the all lands approach to restoration in this watershed.
This proposal builds on a decade of KVRI collaboration and restoration activities accomplished
on all lands throughout the lower Kootenai River watershed. The treatment activities proposed
here will improve water quality and wildlife habitat, bring economic opportunity to local
communities, improve landscape resiliency to severe wildfire, insects and disease and minimize
the effects of climate change. The restoration strategy outlined in this proposal is consistent
with the management vision shared by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the Forest
Service because it is science based; restoration focused, collaboratively developed and takes
advantage of ongoing and planned aquatic and vegetative treatments across all land
ownerships.
KVRI Lower Kootenai River Watershed CFLRP Proposal
Page 2
Ecological Context
This proposal is informed and driven by the Idaho Statewide Forest Resource Strategy analysis
as well as trends identified in the Idaho Panhandle National Forests Draft Forest Management
Plan. The goals and objectives of the landscape strategies outlined here are based on these
documents and are designed to move landscapes within the proposal area toward long term
resiliency and sustainability.
The desired condition of the lower Kootenai River watershed envisioned in this proposal is a
landscape that maintains natural processes, patterns and functions and is more resilient to
climate change and unforeseen disturbances. Historically, forests in the lower Kootenai River
watershed were dominated by large, fire resilient tree species such as ponderosa pine, western
white pine, western larch and white bark pine which grew in a patchy mosaic across the
landscape. Over the past century, the combination of fire exclusion, introduction of blister rust
and past management practices have caused these forests to shift to grand fir, hemlock and
Douglas-fir resulting in increased hazardous fuels accumulations and epidemic levels of insect
infestation and disease. These conditions have adversely affected nearly every aspect of the
landscape causing detrimental effects to wildlife habitat, watershed health and risk of severe
wildfires.
Forest Conditions
The lower Kootenai River watershed contains a mix of moist, dry and subalpine forest types.
Restoration work outlined in this proposal is focused first on the most at risk moist and dry
forest types. Later projects will focus on ensuring the continuity of restoration throughout the
rest of the forested landscape.
Mixed moist forests are the most common in the project area. These forests are a mixture of
conifer species (western red cedar, western hemlock, western larch, Douglas-fir, grand fir,
western white pine, lodgepole pine, etc). Prior to the introduction of blister rust, white pine
was a dominant species. Compared to historic conditions, the lower Kootenai River watershed
has lost over 90% of its white pine forest type and almost 70% of its larch forest type. Today,
only about 2% of the lower Kootenai River watershed remains dominated by white pine.
Prior to modern settlement, intervals between severe fires in mixed moist forest types were
long, making the effects of fire exclusion in these forests most obvious. The exclusion of low
and mixed severity fires over the past century has reduced landscape scale ecological diversity
leaving these forests dominated by stands of similar size, age, density, species composition and
structure. This more homogenous landscape is at higher risk to large, severe fires and less
resilient to the expected effects of climate change. Our restoration strategy for moist forests
responds to these shifts in both stand composition and landscape patterns and processes. The
proposed restoration activities in this proposal would move stand composition in these forests
toward a more resilient tree species mix and restore a mosaic pattern that improves forest
resiliency and provides broad ecological benefits.
KVRI Lower Kootenai River Watershed CFLRP Proposal
Page 3
Dry ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests make up approximately 25% of the forests in the
lower Kootenai River watershed and are the most in need of restoration. Historically, surface
fires and occasional mixed severity fires maintained low and variable tree densities, light and
patchy ground fuels, simplified forest structure and favored fire tolerant trees such as
ponderosa pine. These fire patterns reduced the likelihood of severe wildfire and its effects.
Frequent under burns also maintained a variety of age classes that were typically dominated by
large, old trees. A century of fire suppression has essentially removed under burns and most
mixed severity fires from the dry forest landscape. Consequently, densities in this forest type
have increased resulting in an influx of Douglas-fir and grand fir into what were historically
ponderosa pine forests. This condition elevates the risk of insect and disease outbreaks and
creates a denser, more uniform forest understory that escalates the risk of large, severe crown
fires and reduces the quality and availability of critical wildlife habitat.
The forest restoration activities in this proposal are based on our understanding of the role
historic fire regimes have had in restoring and maintaining resilient forests, including old
growth and large trees. Achieving the restoration goals in this proposal will promote larch,
ponderosa pine and white pine and reverse the trend toward forests that are dominated by
Douglas-fir, grand fir and hemlock. The restored forest landscape will include a mosaic of
variable size patches and gaps and large diameter and older trees across the landscape. Forest
composition and fuel loading will be such that fire can resume its natural function. Such a
landscape will be resilient to changing climate and disturbances while maintaining natural
processes, patterns and functions.
Wildlife Habitat
Artificial forest composition, habitat fragmentation, fire suppression and wildfire risk threaten
wildlife habitat across the proposal area. In addition to threatened and endangered species
concerns, communities depend on game and other species for their recreational and economic
benefits. Threatened and endangered species habitat is perhaps the greatest wildlife concern
inside the project area and has significantly influenced the development of this restoration
strategy. Achieving diverse forest composition and structure at the landscape scale is vital to
providing adequate habitats for these species. KVRI and its partners are sensitive to these
needs as well as the need to increase the quantity and quality of big game winter range. Habitat
protection has been a recurring priority in the proposal area as evidenced by several
collaborative efforts including the Vital Ground Foundation’s work to acquire over 2,400 acres
of conservation easements and Forest Legacy acquisitions within the project area. Other
examples of wildlife habitat protection include fisheries recovery work conducted by the
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and habitat improvements done by the Forest Service. These examples
and the priorities identified in statewide assessments, the local forest plan and input from
federal wildlife agencies emphasize the need for habitat restoration activities in strategic
locations across the lower Kootenai River watershed.
Watershed Quality and Health
A history of mining, fire suppression, channel alteration, poorly designed road construction and
past management activities has impaired the function of many waterways within the proposal
KVRI Lower Kootenai River Watershed CFLRP Proposal
Page 4
area. These conditions have impacted water quality for communities and degraded habitat for
bull trout, west slope cutthroat trout and red band trout and affected burbot and white
sturgeon recovery in the area. In order to improve these conditions, road density and
sedimentation must be reduced and vegetative conditions and in-stream habitat must be
improved. This restoration need has been recognized for many years and KVRI has already
begun to address it through efforts to delist streams and working with the state’s TMDL
program. The trend toward improved water quality will continue to expand as activities that
improve water quality are accomplished through implementation of this proposal.
Social and Economic Context
Successful ecological restoration on the landscape must also improve social and economic
conditions for the people and communities within the lower Kootenai River watershed. The rich
human history of the area includes the ancient presence of the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho,
pioneers, boom towns and vast natural resources. In the early 1800s the area was referred to
by locals as the “Nile of the North” due to the wealth of natural resources, transportation and
economic opportunities that existed there. Times have changed however, and today the
unemployment rate in Boundary County is 16.2%, one of the highest in the nation. This
situation did not develop overnight, although it has been exacerbated by the recent financial
downturn.
The proud citizens of the region have strong cultural ties to the landscape. But due to failing
economies and a decline in resource management on federal land, traditional timber, mining
and agricultural job markets have declined. Opportunities exist, however, to create resourcebased jobs and stimulate economic growth and community stability through restoration work.
Several manufacturing facilities exist in and near the proposal area that can process the
material created through forest management. Additional economic growth will result from the
new workforce created to implement ecological restoration activities. Finally, improved
ecological conditions will benefit local economies as new recreation opportunities are
discovered and wildfire protection costs are reduced.
The restoration objectives outlined in this proposal represent only one part of a multi-faceted,
all lands strategy being implemented by KVRI, the Forest Service and other partners. KVRI has
identified numerous restoration opportunities in the proposal area and is confident that the
restoration strategy outlined here, combined with additional work being undertaken by its
partners, will provide significant and much needed ecological, social and economic restoration
in the lower Kootenai Valley watershed.
KVRI Lower Kootenai River Watershed CFLRP Proposal
Page 5
Summary of Landscape Strategy
The lower Kootenai River watershed landscape strategy, which provides the basis for this
proposal, was developed by first incorporating general restoration priorities and activities
identified in the Idaho Statewide Forest Resource Strategy (SFRS) and then becoming more
specific by incorporating concepts found in the Northern Region Integrated Restoration and
Protection Strategy, analysis and trends identified in the Idaho Panhandle National Forests Draft
Land Management Plan and the Kootenai River & Moyie River Subbasin Assessments and
TMDLs. Our landscape strategy is also heavily influenced by input from scientists working in the
Rocky Mountain Research Station’s Climate Change research program.
The SFRS was collaboratively developed by 22 core members from federal, state, local and nongovernmental organizations in Idaho and is based on the Statewide Forest Resource
Assessment (SFRA). These studies are the direct result of Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack’s call
for an “all lands” approach to restoration. The statewide assessment identifies priority
landscapes for restoration and the statewide strategy outlines how the restoration goals and
objectives identified for each priority landscape will be met.
Both the SFRS and the SFRA identify the north Idaho panhandle as a Priority Landscape Area,
specifically the area is categorized as either “high” or “very high” priority due to a combination
of social, ecological and economic factors including significant wildfire risk, a large number of
threatened and endangered species, watershed restoration needs, increasing recreation
demands, declining local economic conditions and the presence of a significant forest products
market with unmet capacity. Based on these realities, the SFRS outlined a set of goals for the
area, which KVRI has adopted as the overarching goals for this proposed project. They are:
1. Landscapes are diverse and resilient to climactic changes and other natural and unique
stresses.
2. The ecosystem benefits are identified, maintained and enhanced.
3. Forest lands with the highest benefits are identified, protected and enhanced. These
include, but are not limited to, lands that provide wildlife habitat, watershed benefits,
ecological resiliency and recreational opportunities.
4. Forest ecosystems are resilient to human activities (development, recreation, forest
practices, invasive weeds, etc.).
5. Forest-based wood products markets are economically vibrant and sustainable.
Additional information that shaped our landscape strategy and priority restoration treatments
within the project area came from the Northern Region Integrated Restoration and Protection
Strategy. This strategy examines Northern Region landscapes that have developed as a result of
natural and cultural processes and incorporates national restoration goals. Parts of the
Northern Region are experiencing dramatic population growth, especially in the Wildland
Urban Interface (WUI) areas. Years of successful fire suppression in these areas has left them
more susceptible to large-scale landscape disturbances that exceed historic natural processes.
This reality places both ecological and social values at risk. The Northern Region Integrated
KVRI Lower Kootenai River Watershed CFLRP Proposal
Page 6
Restoration and Protection Strategy provides guidance for integrating forest and grassland
management to ensure the following:
Restoration and maintenance of high value watersheds in a properly functioning
condition.
Restoration and maintenance of wildlife habitats, including restoration of more resilient
vegetation conditions, where appropriate, to meet ecological and social goals.
Protection of people, structures and community infrastructure (roads, bridges and
power corridors) in and associated with the WUI areas.
This strategy is also influenced by the Idaho Panhandle National Forests forest plan. KVRI has
worked closely with the Idaho Panhandle National Forests over the last decade on the Forest’s
forest plan revision. The draft plan is nearing completion and through the use of best available
science and unprecedented collaboration, the Forest Service has identified a restoration
strategy that draws heavily from national, regional and local strategies including the Idaho
Statewide Forest Resource Strategy mentioned above.
Water quality is a significant issue inside the project area and as such, the State of Idaho’s
Kootenai River and Moyie River Subbasin Assessments and TMDLs document was a critical
element of the landscape strategy. Since 2001, KVRI has worked collaboratively with the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality to implement the monitoring plans for the agency’s
TMDL assessment. Information gathered from this assessment bolsters the need for landscape
restoration, supports the goals and objectives outlined in the SFRS and underscores the
benefits of restoration efforts on national forest system lands that seek to improve aquatic
conditions upstream.
Finally, the draft forest plan also includes significant input from climate change scientists from
the Rocky Mountain Research Station. These scientists completed a synthesis of current science
to provide guidance for improving the resiliency of the landscape over time, which has been
incorporated into the draft forest plan. The analysis and trends identified in the draft forest
plan complement the SFRS, regional strategies and the restoration efforts of collaborating
organizations. It also contains multiple goals that ensure an effective balance between social
and ecological needs such as watershed and ecosystem health, wildfire use and protection,
recreation and public access and economic sustainability for local communities.
KVRI Lower Kootenai River Watershed CFLRP Proposal
Page 7
Proposed Treatment
The landscape included in this proposal was chosen based on the boundaries of the lower
Kootenai River watershed which includes 413,000 acres of National Forest System lands.
Potential landscape restoration treatments in this area were selected because they
complement the goals and objectives outlined in the Idaho Statewide Forest Resource Strategy,
the Forest Service Northern Region Integrated Restoration and Protection Strategy, the analysis
and trends contained in the Idaho Panhandle National Forests Draft Forest Management Plan
and input from the Kootenai River and Moyie River Subbasin Assessments.
In support of the goals outlined in the documents listed above, the following treatment
objectives were developed for this landscape restoration proposal:
Reduce the risk of unwanted wildland fire on the landscape.
Increase the resilience of the landscape to the effects of unwanted wildland fire in the
event that such a fire occurs.
Increase the resilience of the forested landscape to insect and disease epidemics.
Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat.
Increase the number of watersheds that are in fully functional hydrologic condition.
Provide high-quality outdoor recreational opportunities.
Reduce the impacts from invasive species.
Provide the opportunity for the utilization of a variety of wood products; including but
not limited to lumber, biomass and alternative energy sources.
Based on these treatment objectives, the following treatments are proposed:
RESTORATION TREATMENT TYPE
Prescribed Fire - habitat improvement/fuels reduction (acres)
Roadside Restoration and Road Maintenance (acres)
Invasive Plant Management (acres)
Culvert Upgrades (number)
Fish Passage/Culvert Replacement (number)
Road Decommissioning (miles)
Road Improvement and Maintenance (miles)
Trail Reconstruction (miles)
In-stream Fisheries Improvement (miles)
Bridge Replacement (structures)
Trail Maintenance (miles)
Riparian Area Improvements (acres)
Timber Harvest (acres)
Commercial Harvest - Helicopter (acres)
Reforestation/Timber Stand Improvement (acres)
Biomass Utilization (tons)
FY 2011
400
3
1
25
30
FY 2012
535
1000
400
3
1
28
30
1500
1700
365
5000
280
2300
FY 2013-2020
8000
8000
4400
24
24
120
280
50
5
3
640
100
24800
1500
4628
92700
KVRI Lower Kootenai River Watershed CFLRP Proposal
Page 8
Over the past 10 years, a significant amount of ecological restoration activity has already been
accomplished across the project area by a number of agencies and organizations, including the
Forest Service, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and the KVRI. The Bonners Ferry Ranger District has
implemented restoration on more than 16,700 acres including vegetation treatments, instream treatments, prescribed fire, wildfire use, habitat improvement and recreation projects.
Throughout the development and implementation of these projects, the Bonners Ferry Ranger
District has relied on KVRI to provide a venue to share information and ensure positive
communication and, in many cases, to facilitate project collaboration and planning. These
projects have improved ecosystem composition and structure, improved wildlife habitat,
maintained and improved hydrologic function and provided social and economic benefits to
local communities. The strong partnership between the Forest Service and KVRI over the last
decade has resulted in collaboration being the starting point for all significant projects on the
Bonners Ferry Ranger District.
The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho has also implemented several projects within the proposal area.
Most significantly, the tribe has more than 20 years of experience in Kootenai River white
sturgeon recovery and has spent nearly 10 years working toward burbot restoration including
plans for construction of a fish hatchery and agreements with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
on Libby Dam operations. Since KVRI was founded 10 years ago, the collaborative has been
heavily engaged in these recovery efforts as well.
KVRI’s work has been critical to the successful implementation of restoration work in the valley.
Their involvement has helped move local opinion on wildlife and watershed restoration from
fear and frustration to support and cooperation. Specifically, KVRI’s collaborative involvement
has helped agencies and organizations increase grizzly bear habitat, accomplish post fire
restoration in the Bonner’s Ferry municipal watershed, reintroduce burbot in the Kootenai
River, restore wetland and riparian habitat and establish multi-party monitoring of TMDLs.
KVRI’s support and sponsorship of this proposal will build on these successes and carry these
relationships forward; ensuring that the important restoration work needed in the lower
Kootenai River watershed is effectively implemented.
Implementation of the treatments described in this proposal will be prioritized and applied
based on the guidance described in the Statewide Forest Resource Strategy. Additionally, the
analysis and trends identified in the nearly completed Idaho Panhandle National Forests draft
forest plan provide restoration guidance. These documents and the CFLRP goals described in
the Landscape Strategy section of this proposal form the foundation for the desired conditions.
Basing this CFLRP proposal on these documents ensures that comprehensive and coordinated
restoration is achieved across the landscape.
The desired condition categories in this proposal are aquatic restoration; wildlife habitat;
vegetation management; recreation, roads and trails; invasive species; wildfire; and climate
change.
KVRI Lower Kootenai River Watershed CFLRP Proposal
Page 9
Aquatic Restoration
Desired conditions for aquatic restoration within the lower Kootenai River watershed are to
provide healthy watersheds and aquatic habitats that are resilient to disturbances and where
natural processes provide multiple benefits to the ecosystem and its users. Achievement of this
condition will require improvements on lands that contribute to municipal watersheds and
public water systems with an emphasis on restoring ecosystem processes and function in sub
watersheds of the Kootenai River. Specifically, this includes road improvements and
decommissioning, culvert upgrades and replacements and in-stream and habitat improvements
to improve stream channel connectivity. Implementing this work will significantly improve
aquatic health, help maintain and enhance ecosystem benefits and protect lands that provide
the greatest benefits. Furthermore, as a result of cooperation and coordination with state and
federal agencies, tribes and other groups, implementation of this proposal will contribute to
state and tribal population goals for native and desirable non-native fish.
Wildlife
Desired wildlife habitat conditions strive to contribute to the diversity of desired native and
non-native animal communities and to the recovery of threatened and endangered terrestrial
wildlife species. Activities described in this proposal are designed to restore wildlife habitat
with an emphasis on habitat restoration for threatened, endangered and sensitive species.
Proposed habitat restoration efforts include two primary improvement methods. The first is to
reduce wildlife disturbances by reducing motorized routes and decommissioning roads. The
second is to increase shrub diversity, forested vegetation types and openings which benefit
grizzly bears and flammulated owls. This is achieved through silvicultural processes, preferably
prescribed fire because it typically leaves important structural components (snags and downed
wood) necessary for wildlife.
Vegetation Management
The desired condition for vegetation management is to ensure forest landscape composition is
diverse and resilient to wildfire, insects, disease and the effects of climate change. A significant
component of this desired condition relies on restoring historically resilient species such as
western larch and white pine to their appropriate locations throughout the lower Kootenai
River watershed. The decline of these species has significantly contributed to wildlife habitat
loss, wildfire danger and poor forest health in the project area. However, through strategic
restoration efforts, the resurgence of these species will provide greater resiliency as we plan for
and adapt to the effects of climate change. Planned vegetation treatments include hazardous
fuels reduction, commercial thinning and harvest to improve forest structure composition and
habitat and reforestation.
KVRI Lower Kootenai River Watershed CFLRP Proposal
Page 10
Recreation, Roads and Trails
The desired condition here is to maintain or enhance dispersed and developed recreation
opportunities, reduce disturbances to aquatic process and wildlife habitat and ensure forest
access through a safe and appropriate road and trail system. This goal will be achieved by
balancing a wide array of dispersed, developed, motorized and non-motorized recreation
throughout the project area, and through careful management of roads and trails. Both social
and economic benefits will be achieved through creating restoration-focused job opportunities
during implementation, transient recreational use and the social benefits derived from
providing quality recreational opportunities. Proposed activities include trail maintenance and
reconstruction, road maintenance and bridge replacements.
Invasive Species
The invasive species desired condition is that new invasive plant species are treated and
existing populations are contained or eradicated. Agreements with cooperative weed
management areas will help manage noxious weed and invasive plant control across
jurisdictional boundaries. Boundary County has a very strong and aggressive invasive weed
program being implemented on private lands. KVRI and its partners will work within the
confines of the Bonners Ferry Noxious Weeds Environmental Impact Statement to reduce
noxious weed and invasive plant density, infestation size and/or occurrence. Upon discovery of
new noxious weeds or invasive plant species in areas where restoration treatments are applied,
the objective will be to contain 100% of these occurrences, particularly in previously weed-free
grasslands, riparian areas and wetlands.
Climate Change
The climate change goal is to ensure a landscape that is resilient to the predicted effects of
climate change. Partnerships with the Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station,
Pacific Northwest Research Station, the University of Idaho and Boise State University have
provided important climate change information applicable to the Idaho Panhandle National
Forests and this proposal area. This information indicates that temperatures in the area are
projected to rise 5.9 to 9.7 degrees by the end of the century. Recommendations from these
partners to address the situation include actions to restore watershed processes and function,
manage vegetation density, increase vegetation diversity, favor wildfire-resilient tree species,
maintain or enhance wildlife habitat and ensure appropriate responses to disturbances. This
proposal is responsive to those recommendations through a variety of vegetative treatments,
habitat improvements and aquatic activities.
Wildfire
The desired wildfire condition is to reestablish and maintain natural fire regimes across the
lower Kootenai River watershed. Once vegetative restoration activities have been
implemented, maintenance of fire regimes through planned prescribed fire and unplanned
natural fire will be implemented to manage long-term costs and to prevent continued fuel
accumulation.
KVRI Lower Kootenai River Watershed CFLRP Proposal
Page 11
Treating fuel hazards through restoration will restore fuel conditions so that surface wildfire
flame lengths are reduced to 1-2 feet and fire spread rates are low (well within the capabilities
of ground suppression forces). Fires will stay in the surface fuels because the risk of crown fire
will be removed. Timber harvest, prescribed fire or a combination of both will be the primary
tools used to implement these restoration treatments.
Following restoration, wildfire and prescribed fire will remain part of the landscape and
unwanted fires will be easier to control. Opportunities to manage fire for resource benefits in
remote portions of the landscape are critical to this strategy and will support landscape
restoration goals to restore historic fire regimes. In places where it is appropriate for fire
suppression to continue, the focus will be on fuels management activities to reduce potential
fire hazards. In restored areas, the type of prescribed fire used will be important to ensure fuels
reduction maintenance and to restore fire regimes where the use of wildfire is too risky. A
variety of annual prescribed burning activities including under burning, broadcast and pile
burning will occur to reduce fire activity and reduce natural fuels. Use of prescribed fire will
also help prepare harvested sites for regeneration of long-lived seral species and improve
wildlife habitat. Approximately 8,500 acres of prescribed fire is planned under this proposal.
Unplanned fire in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) is also a significant concern. Communities
in the WUI will benefit from fuels reduction and maintenance activities that reduce the threat
and severity of wildfire. Additionally, in 2003, Boundary County completed the Boundary
County Wildland Urban Interface Mitigation Plan (2003). This plan has been beneficial to local
communities as they work collaboratively with the Idaho Panhandle National Forests to identify
many priority hazardous fuel treatment areas and implement projects.
This restoration strategy includes approximately 29,000 acres of hazardous fuel reduction
treatments over a 10 year period. A very conservative estimate of the total anticipated Fire
Program cost savings for the fully implemented proposal is $2.5 million. The majority of these
savings occur as a result of positive net revenue associated with treating these acres, as the
cost per acre for treatment is less than the anticipated revenue per acre from the timber being
removed. The actual cost savings have the potential of being much larger. Estimates of pretreatment versus post-treatment suppression expenditures were purposefully conservative (a
reduction in costs of only 2%) since there is insufficient evidence at this time to provide a
defensible, scientifically rigorous estimate of the change in either acres burned or suppression
expenditures. Future modeling efforts will enable a better prediction of anticipated wildfire
suppression cost savings. For more information related to wildfire cost savings, see the R-CAT
spreadsheet in Attachment B.
KVRI Lower Kootenai River Watershed CFLRP Proposal
Page 12
Collaboration and Multi-Party Monitoring
Collaboration
The Kootenai Valley was built by independent people who forged a living from the vast natural
resources they found in the area. However, in the recent past, local industry began to fail as
did ecological and forest health. To respond to these challenges, in 2001 the Kootenai Valley
Resource Initiative (KVRI) was formed under a joint powers agreement between the Kootenai
Tribe of Idaho, Boundary County, ID and the City of Bonners Ferry, ID. KVRI’s mission is to help
improve coordination, integration and implementation of existing local, state and federal
programs that can effectively maintain, enhance and restore the social, cultural and natural
resource bases in the broader community.
While KVRI is continuously reaching out to expand its partnership and collaborative base,
currently the group is comprised of 11 members and more than 20 partner organizations
representing tribal government, local government, private citizens, federal and state agencies,
conservation and environmental groups, local business and industry and research entities. KVRI
is guided by three co-chairs; one from The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, one from Boundary County
and one from the City of Bonners Ferry. KVRI serves as the primary forum for a broad range of
issue and utilizes a number of subcommittees (range of 10-30 members). The Initiative’s core
members function as a Board which meets monthly and makes decisions by consensus. The
subcommittees coordinate projects and multi-party monitoring and do the bulk of the group’s
technical work.
Together with its partners, KVRI has worked for over ten years on landscape strategy
development addressing grizzly bear conservation, fisheries recovery, water quality, wetlands
and riparian conservation, wildfire protection and forest restoration. This broad view of
ecological health makes KVRI one of the first collaborative groups in the nation to embrace an
“all lands” approach. KVRI has a track record of successful projects, which is the foundation of
this proposal. KVRI and its partners have accomplished the following projects:
Development and implementation of the Burbot Conservation Strategy.
Leadership role as the Watershed Advisory Group for development and implementation
of the TMDL Plan, which includes many watershed restoration projects.
Development, facilitation and implementation of the Wetland/Riparian Conservation
Strategy for the Lower Kootenai Watershed.
Facilitated and provided public education and outreach on grizzly bear recovery efforts,
including purchases of conservation easements.
Facilitated the Myrtle Creek Healthy Forest Restoration Act project.
Multi-Party Monitoring
The Idaho Panhandle National Forests, KVRI and other partners will bring 10 years of
experience implementing adaptive, multi-party monitoring to the monitoring component of this
proposal. Examples of this multi-party work include monitoring for grizzly bear abundance and
habitat security, woodland caribou snowmobile closures, wolverine populations, forest
KVRI Lower Kootenai River Watershed CFLRP Proposal
Page 13
carnivore inventories, TMDLs, municipal water supply turbidity and fisheries. In all of these
examples, two or more agencies, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, KVRI and/or non-governmental
organizations were involved. This deep experience in multi-party monitoring, and the strong
relationships that developed as a result, provides the foundation for the monitoring that will be
implemented in this proposal.
The adaptive monitoring framework outlined here will organize the stakeholders involved with
KVRI into a multi-party monitoring group. Once the monitoring group for this proposal is
convened, goals and indicators will be defined by the group (consistent with those outlined in
this proposal) to ensure a common idea of what “success” looks like. These steps will provide
the foundation for determining when the goals outlined in this proposal have been achieved.
Monitoring criteria will be based on the ecological restoration objectives described in this
proposal, Idaho Panhandle National Forests forest plan requirements and individual project
NEPA documents. Based on these requirements and objectives, the multi-party group will
develop a written adaptive monitoring plan which will identify those responsible for collecting
data and how often it will be collected. As part of the adaptive monitoring feedback loop, the
group will review and analyze the monitoring data/results for effectiveness and determine if
changes are necessary. Providing data and information to all stakeholders will be an essential
element of this framework. To ensure transparency and trust, the monitoring team will reach
out to the broader community to share what has been learned. Tools used to disseminate
information to the public may include meetings, newsletters and/or websites.
The multi-party monitoring process for this proposal will also include ecological, social and
economic dimensions based on sampling and data management protocols. Protocols will be
documented, standardized and safely stored in order to maintain continuity of the monitoring
effort over time. Baseline data from various assessments, past multi-party monitoring efforts
and the Idaho Panhandle National Forests forest plan will provide reference points for
comparison of future monitoring data. Specific methods used to track ecological, social and
economic indicators will be developed using the best available science. The monitoring group
will work collaboratively to define the indicators, methods to measure the indicators, location
and frequency of measurement, who will collect the data and how it will be analyzed and
stored.
To measure ecological goals, indicators will include both resource restoration and protection.
For social and economic goals, indicators will seek to measure changes in local employment
opportunities, income/wages for local contractors and workers, diversity of wood products
produced and net revenue generated from the sale of those products.
Effectiveness monitoring will be used to determine the effects of implemented treatments in
achieving project goals. Based on the goals and objectives identified in this proposal, sampling
indicators that provide specific measures of project progress toward the restoration goals will
be developed. Using the best available science and input from all parties involved, indicators
will be measurable, precise, unbiased and sensitive to shifting conditions so change can be
KVRI Lower Kootenai River Watershed CFLRP Proposal
Page 14
detected within the anticipated monitoring timeframe. Measures of success will be based on
incremental changes that lead to the achievement/maintenance of a landscape that provides
clean water, resilient fish and wildlife populations, adequate wildlife habitat, community
protection from uncharacteristic wildfire and effective use of wood fiber and biomass.
Following implementation of the initial projects, collected indicator data will be evaluated and
assessed to determine if restoration goals were met. This will involve outreach to concerned
stakeholders in order to ensure that before additional project planning occurs, stakeholders
and members of the collaborative can consider new information and agree upon adjustments
to monitoring and project implementation before moving forward.
KVRI Lower Kootenai River Watershed CFLRP Proposal
Page 15
Utilization
The utilization strategy for this CFLRA proposal is based upon expected byproducts from
restoration treatments. These treatments will provide material to local timber and energy
companies, and will increase opportunities to help strengthen local economies.
Under this proposal, the Idaho Panhandle National Forests propose to treat 3,000 acres per
year over 10 years. The logging systems that will be used are 52% ground based, 24% cable and
14% helicopter. An estimated 11-12 million board feet (MMBF) of saw log volume will result
from management activities described in this proposal.
The products that will result from these activities are saw logs, non saw logs and biomass. Saw
logs are logs that are 5.6” and larger on the small end, with a minimum length of 8 feet
containing at least 1/3 sound wood. The majority of the saw log material will be cut into
lumber. Non saw logs are logs that have 4” tops or larger and are a minimum length of 9 feet.
These include logs that are big enough to be saw logs but are not sound enough to meet saw
log specifications. Most non saw log material will be chipped and sold to secondary
manufacturing facilities. Biomass is material that doesn’t meet saw log or non saw log
specifications and is generally the slash that is left over after the saw logs and non saw logs
have been removed. This material will be ground where feasible and used as fuel for electrical
cogeneration or for boilers to produce heat.
There are five sawmills in the region that can use saw logs from restoration activities within the
project landscape. They are: the Idaho Forest Group stud mill at Moyie Springs, the Welco
cedar fence mill in Naples, the Neumayer Mill and Timberland Wood Products in Bonners Ferry
and Chapel Cedar mill in Troy, MT. The annual saw log consumption of these facilities is
currently about 80 MMBF with the capacity to add additional shifts if saw log volume increases.
In addition, there are several mills outside Boundary County that buy wood from the project
area including the Idaho Forest Group mill in Laclede, the Stimson Lumber mills in Priest River
and Plummer and Vaagen Brothers small log mills in Usk and Coleville, WA.
Non saw log material in the project area is marketed to Fodge Pulp in Bonners Ferry, which
provides a stable market for this material. Vaagen Brothers and Ponderay Newsprint in Usk, WA
also provide markets for non saw logs.
Biomass material will be available to whole log chipping operations (there are two facilities
within 100 miles of the project area) and existing sawmill and cogeneration facilities. Biomass
not removed would be treated using conventional means such as slash pile burning. Biomass
material from this project could result in new investment in biomass energy infrastructure or
could provide material to existing facilities. Currently, Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP)
funding is helping to facilitate grinding and delivery of material to Avista Corporation in Kettle
Falls, WA. Additional developing markets are being explored at the Idaho Forest Group mills in
Moyie Springs and Chilco, ID. Bark and biomass material are currently being used by Mountain
West in Eureka, MT, Northwest Beauty Bark in Spokane, WA, Avista Cogeneration in Kettle
KVRI Lower Kootenai River Watershed CFLRP Proposal
Page 16
Falls, WA, Clearwater Pulp and Paper in Lewiston, ID and numerous sawmill boilers. Based on
the proposed treatments, 10-20 green tons of biomass per acre are expected to be made
available to biomass energy plants.
Other byproducts that may result from management activities under this proposal are chips,
shavings and sawdust. Chips can be used by Ponderay Newsprint in Usk, WA, Inland Empire
Paper in Spokane, WA, Clearwater Pulp and Paper in Lewiston, ID, Plum Creek MDF in Columbia
Falls, MT, Longview Fibre in Longview, WA, and Celgar Pulp and Paper in Castlegar, B.C.
Shavings and sawdust are used by North Idaho Energy Log in Bonners Ferry, ID, Lignetics in
Sandpoint, ID, Roseburg Particle Board in Missoula, MT, and Plum Creek MDF in Columbia Falls,
MT.
Current stumpage values of the removed material which will help offset treatments costs are as
follows:
Ground Based Logging
Saw Log
$20.00 to $28.00/Ton
Non Saw log
$1.00 to $9.00/Ton
Skyline Logging
$10.00 to $18.00/Ton
$1.00 to -$9.00/Ton
Helicopter Logging
$25.00 to -$30.00/Ton
$35.00 to -$45/Ton
The average gross stumpage paid to the Forest Service will be approximately $10 per ton for all
tonnage included in this proposal. Based on an annual harvest of 11 to 12 MMBF,
approximately $900,000 would be returned annually to the Forest Service to help offset
restoration costs.
KVRI Lower Kootenai River Watershed CFLRP Proposal
Page 17
Benefits to Local Economies
An increase in restoration activities in Boundary County has the potential to significantly
improve the local economy. In 2008, per capita income in Boundary County was $24,295,
compared to $32,877 for the state of Idaho and $40,023 for the United States. Average
earnings per job in 2008 were $29,919 for Boundary County, $37,963 for the state of Idaho, and
$50,080 for the nation. By 2009, the unemployment rate in Boundary County was 16.2%, much
higher than the national average of 9.3%, or the state average of 8 %. Per capita income and
average earnings per job were also substantially lower in Boundary County than for the state of
Idaho as a whole.
The number of jobs and the amount of labor income supported by the CFLRP funding proposed
in this project was estimated using the Treatments for Restoration Economic Analysis Tool
(TREAT). This analysis indicates that the restoration activities paid for by CFLRP funds will
directly support approximately 86 full- and part-time jobs and $2.6 million in labor income
annually for 10 years. Of these 86 jobs, approximately 38 are associated with commercial
timber harvest, 15 with restoration activities and 33 with implementation and monitoring. The
proposed activities will also contribute an additional 58.6 jobs and $1.9 million in labor income
associated with the indirect and induced economic impacts as the money makes its way
through the rest of the economy (the multiplier effect).
Altogether, the proposed CFLRP funding would support 144 jobs and provide $4.5 million in
labor income. It is estimated that approximately 60% (52) of the 86 jobs directly supported by
the funding would be full-time positions, 10% (8.6 jobs would be part-time) and 26 (30%) would
be seasonal. These numbers reflect the type and seasonality of the work being done. It is more
difficult to estimate how many of the 58.6 indirect and induced jobs would be full-time, parttime or seasonal. It is likely that the vast majority would be full-time since these jobs are
associated with the retail trade, services, real estate, food services, wholesale trade and
banking sectors which are generally not seasonal. More detailed economic benefit and job
creation information is available in the TREAT spreadsheet in Attachment E.
Many of the vegetative treatments outlined in this proposal will be accomplished through
stewardship contracts, while the restoration activities such as road improvements, culvert
replacement, in stream work and other restoration activities will be accomplished primarily
through service contracts. North Idaho is fortunate to have a large pool of local contractors
ready to bid on and accomplish this work. Contractors will be selected using “best value”
criteria to ensure the most efficient and effective use of funding.
KVRI Lower Kootenai River Watershed CFLRP Proposal
Page 18
Funding Plan
The funding plan for this proposal will facilitate efficient use of funds, ensuring every dollar is
put to its best use. Effective monitoring is critical to the success of this proposal and the
proposed 8-10% of funding dedicated toward monitoring will allow the collaborative and the
Idaho Panhandle National Forests to build on current multi-party monitoring successes. Both
the Idaho Panhandle National Forests and the KVRI have committed to providing 50% of the
funding necessary to implement this proposal, which based on the anticipated use of
stewardship contracting wherever feasible, should be doable. Funds generated from proposed
management activities will be used to meet resource needs and to implement watershed
restoration, wildlife habitat enhancement and recreational improvements. The KVRI and the
Idaho Panhandle National Forests Forest Supervisor will work together to determine the
appropriate levels of annual funding needed to implement the restoration activities proposed
here.
As described in previous sections of this proposal, KVRI has been involved with many of the
considerable non-federal investments within the project area. These efforts demonstrate
KVRI’s commitment to developing broad-scale, integrated landscape restoration through multiparty collaboration. Other actions that will support the implementation of this proposal
include:
Boundary County Fire Safe Program
Burbot Restoration- $250,000 congressional appropriation; on-going efforts w/habitat Tribe/KVRI/USFWS
Kokanee re-introduction, Tribe/Bonneville Environmental Foundation 10 year Model
Program/BPA
Myrtle Creek watershed restoration- RAC funding
20 Mile project restoration- RAC funding
Boundary County $5,000 annually to KVRI
TMDL-319 to 20 Mile
TransCanda Grant for KVRI Grizzly Bear Committee - $4,500
KVRI Grizzly Bear Committee work - USFWS funding for garbage cans, etc.
Kootenai Valley Habitat Restoration Project - Tribe/BPA
Sturgeon Recovery Projects - Tribe/BPA/IDFG/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
NRCS Landowner Projects - Wetlands/Forestry/Agriculture Plans
Forest Legacy Projects - Partnerships with Vital Ground/Nature Conservancy/IDL/private
forest landowners to improve wildlife habitat
Attachment A: Projected Accomplishments Table
Lower Kootenai River Watershed
Performance Measure
Acres treated annually to sustain or restore watershed
function and resilience
23
Acres of forest vegetation established
Acres of forest vegetation improved
Manage noxious weeds and invasive plants
Acres of water or soil resources protected, maintained
or improved to achieve desired watershed conditions.
Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced
Acres of terrestrial habitat restored or enhanced
Acres of rangeland vegetation improved
1
Code
WTRSHDRSTR-ANN
FOR-VEG-EST
FOR-VEG-IMP
INVPLTNXWD-FED-AC
S&W-RSRCIMP
HBT-ENHSTRM
HBT-ENHTERR
Number of
units to be
treated over
10 years
using
Partner
Funds
CFLR funds
to be used
over 10 years
Other FS
funds to be
used over 10
years
Partner
funds to be
used over 10
years
Number of
units to be
treated over
10 years
using CFLR
1
funds
Number of units
to be treated
over 10 years
using other FS
funds
15,772
3,223
13,145
19,715
3,222
11,011
3,943
2,000
1,000
1,000
240,741
120,371
120,371
1,347
1,063
285
88,443
44,221
44,221
28.5
14.25
14.25
442,213
221,106
221,106
10,091
5,735
4,357
Cost accounted for in other items
600
300
300
74,292
37,146
37,146
170
85
85
563,044
281,522
281,522
86.5
69.2
17.3
976,741
781,393
195,348
2,134
Cost accounted for in other items
1,384,172
1,384,172
429,895
429,896
RG-VEG-IMP
Miles of passenger car system roads receiving
maintenance
RD-PC-MAINT
Miles of road decommissioned
RD-DECOM
The attainment units for many performance measures reflect integrated accomplishments from several contributing activities. However, to avoid duplication of cost information,
the associated costs for any one activity are only listed under that activities core performance measure.
2
It is assumed that all commercial timber sale activities using conventional logging systems will generate sufficient revenues to cover associated site prep for planting or activity
fuel reduction costs.
3
It is assumed that 50% of the commercial harvest acres by conventional logging and 20% of the commercial harvest acres by helicopter logging will be reforested by planting
desired species. Planting costs for the conventional logging acres may be covered by timber revenues under stewardship authorities or by KV collections under standard timber
sale contracts. However, given the uncertainty of timber markets, a cost allowance is made to assure NFMA certification requirements can be met.
Performance Measure
Code
Number of stream crossings constructed or
reconstructed to provide for aquatic organism passage
Number of bridges replaced to promote water quality
and aquatic organism passage
STRM-CROSMTG-STD
BRDG-CNSTRCNFT
Miles of system trail maintained to standard
TL-MAINT-STD
Miles of system trail improved to standard
Acres of forestlands treated using timber sales
Number of
units to be
treated over
10 years
using CFLR
1
funds
Number of units
to be treated
over 10 years
using other FS
funds
Number of
units to be
treated over
10 years
using
Partner
Funds
CFLR funds
to be used
over 10 years
Other FS
funds to be
used over 10
years
Partner
funds to be
used over 10
years
13
7
6
1,516,582
758,291
758,291
1.5
1.5
159,197
159,197
320
64
256
150,942
30,188
120,754
25
20
5
29,481
23,585
5,896
4
28,000
3,183,934
3,834,531
40,000
217,520
50,000
50,000
427
213
5,341
20,921
TL-IMP-STD
TMBR-SALESTRT-AC
1,500
Volume of timber sold (CCF)
Green tons from small diameter and low value trees
removed from NFS lands and made available for bioenergy production
Acres of hazardous fuels treated outside the
wildland/urban interface (WUI) to reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildland fire
Acres of wildland/urban interface (WUI) high priority
hazardous fuels treated to reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildland fire
CFLRP Monitoring
4
TMBR-VOLSLD
Cost accounted for in other items
BIO-NRG
FP-FUELSNON-WUI
1,179,235
1,179,235
213
49,925
24,962
24,962
1,920
1,123,305
561,652
561,652
623,277
311,639
311,638
FP-FUELS-WUI
ANN-MONREQ-CMPLT
It is assumed that the 1,500 treatment acres associated with commercial harvest of timber by helicopter logging will be completed through an integrated service contract. This
will require an estimated $6 million to support this logging system and associated fuel reduction costs. An estimated $3.83 million will be redeemed through the associated log
value delivered to the mill. An estimated $3.18 million would be needed to cover the remaining costs above the delivered log value. At least 50% of the commercial timber harvest
associated with conventional logging systems will be accomplished using stewardship authorities, and will allow additional log values to be used to cover other restoration needs.
Given the uncertainty of timber markets in the future, we are unable to estimate these values at this time.
Attachment B: Results-Cost Savings of the R-CAT Spreadsheet
R-CAT Results
Proposal Name: Kootenai River Sub-Basin
Start Year
End Year
2011
2020
Total Treatment Acres
Average Treatment Duration
29,035.00
20
Discounted Anticipated Cost Savings - No Beneficial Use
$
2,485,660
Discounted Anticipated Cost Savings - Low Beneficial Use
$
-
Discounted Anticipated Cost Savings - Moderate Beneficial Use
$
-
Discounted Anticipated Cost Savings - High Beneficial Use
$
-
Proposal Name: Lower
Kootenai River Watershed
Documentation Page
Response/Information
Was the analysis prospective
(projecting activities, costs and
revenues that are planned by the
proposal) or retrospective (using actual
acres, revenues and costs in an
analysis looking back over the life of the
project)?
Start year rationale:
End year rationale:
Duration of treatments rationale:
All dollar amounts entered should
reflect undiscounted or nominal costs,
as they are discounted automatically for
you in the R-CAT spreadsheet tool. Did
you provide undiscounted costs, and in
what year data are your costs and
revenues provided?
Average treatment cost per acre
rationale:
Prospective as this analysis was conducted as part of the proposal
submission and the projects have not yet been implemented.
Implementation can begin immediately.
Ten year plan of work.
Based on past practices on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests
(IPNF) and FFV-FVS simulations done on a similar type of
landscape on the IPNF. That analysis showed a possible
effectiveness of 30 years; we used 20 years to be conservative.
Undiscounted 2010
Average treatment costs were calculated using average regional per
acre costs for the treatments proposed. These are the same costs
used in the funding analysis and include an allowance for planning,
sale admin and sale prep costs. We then created a weightedaverage treatment cost reflecting the different types of treatments.
Average treatment revenue per acre
rationale:
This tool is intended to be used to
estimate Forest Service fire program
costs only, did you conduct your
analysis this way or have you taken an
all lands approach?
Total treatment acres calculations,
assumptions:
Treatment timing rationale with NEPA
analysis considerations:
Annual Fire Season Suppression Cost
Estimate Pre Treatment, Assumptions
and Calculations
Did you use basic Landfire Data for
your Pretreatment Landscape?
Did you modify Landfire data to portray
the pretreatment landscape and fuel
models?
Did you use ArcFuels to help you plan
fuel treatments?
Did you use other modeling to help plan
fuel treatments, if so which modeling?
Did you model fire season costs with
the Large Fire Simulator?
If, so who helped you with this
modeling?
If not, how did you estimate costs,
provide details here:
Did you apply the stratified cost index
(SCI) to your Fsim results?
Who helped you apply SCI to your
FSIM results?
Did you filter to remove Fsim fires
smaller than 300acres and larger than a
reasonable threshold?
What is the upper threshold you used?
Did you use median pre treatment costs
per fire season?
Did you use median post treatment
costs per fire season?
Did you test the statistical difference of
the fire season cost distributions using a
univariate test?
What were the results?
Did you estimate Burned Area
Emergency Response (BAER) costs in
you analysis?
Did you use H codes or some other
approach to estimate these costs?
Revenue data based upon estimated stumpage prices were
calculated using TEA equations, which were then converted to a per
acre basis. These are the same revenues as were used for the
funding analysis.
Yes, Forest Service fire program costs.
Acre estimates from project files on 9 proposed projects.
NEPA is complete.
Data taken from last 10 year period of large fire costs on the
Bonners Ferry Ranger District.
No
No
No
Modeling was done during the NEPA process.
No
No
Used data from last 10 year period on the Bonners Ferry Ranger
District.
No
n/a
n/a
n/a
Used the average from the last 10 years.
No, costs were reduced by a modest 2% to reflect changes in
acreages and fire intensity.
No
n/a
No
No
Did these cost change between pre and
post treatment?
No
Did you estimate long term
No
rehabilitation and reforestation costs in
your analysis?
How did you develop these estimates,
No
and did these cost change between pre
and post treatment?
Did you include small fire cost estimates Yes
in your analysis?
If so, how did you estimate these costs, 10 year average on the District; assumed no change in costs and no,
what time period is used as a reference, we did not change them between pre and post treatment as we
and did these cost change between pre currently have no evidence that these costs would change.
and post treatment?
Did you include beneficial use fire as a
No
cost savings mechanism in your
analysis?
How did you estimate the percent of
n/a
contiguous area where monitoring is an
option for pretreatment landscape?
How did you estimate the percent of
n/a
contiguous area where monitoring is an
option for post treatment landscape,
and why did you select the percentage
of your landscape for low, moderate
and high?
How did you derive an estimate for the
n/a
percentage of full suppression costs
used in fire monitoring for beneficial
use?
Did you ensure that you clicked on all
Yes
the calculation buttons in cells in
column E after entering your estimates?
Did you make any additional
Data was produced under a short time frame and therefore the
modifications that should be
recommended modeling was not completed.
documented?
Attachment C: Members of the Collaborative
Organization Name
The Nature Conservancy
Vital Ground Foundation
Idaho Forest Group – Resource Manager
Pheasants Forever
Kootenai Valley Sportsman – President
Panhandle Lakes RC&D – Exec. Director
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho – Chair Person
City of Bonners Ferry – Mayor
Boundary County Library – Director
Boundary County – Commissioners
Elk Mtn. Farms – Manager
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality –
TMDL Coordinator
Idaho Fish & Game Department – Regional
Director
Idaho Department of Lands – Forest Practices
Act Advisor
Idaho Fish & Game Commission
Boundary Soil Conservation District
U.S. Forest Service – Forest Supervisor
U. S. Forest Service – District Ranger & staff
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Natural Resource Conservation Service – Dist.
Conservationist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Field Officer
Coordinator
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Libby Dam
Biologist
Private Consultant/Industrial Landowner
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho/KVRI - Coordinator
Office of U.S. Senator Mike Crapo
Office of U.S. Senator Jim Risch
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation – Chapter pres.
Office of Species Conservation
Contact Name
Robyn Miller
Ryan Lutey
Bob Blanford
Kevin Greenleaf
Dennis Johnson
Kim Golden
Jennifer Porter
Dave Anderson
Sandy Ashworth
Dan Dinning
Ed Atkins
Bob Steed
Phone Number
208-676-8176
406-549-8650
208-255-3271
208-267-7451
208-267-8167
208-762-4939
208-267-3519
208-610-8021
208-267-3750
208-267-7723
208-267-7714
208-769-1422
Role in Collaborative
KVRI Board member; planning/review/edit proposal/presentations/monitoring
KVRI Grizzly Bear Sub-Committee; review/support proposal
KVRI Board; planning/writer/review/presentations
KVRI Sub-Committees; planning/review/edit proposal
KVRI Sub-Committee; support proposal
KVRI partner; project support;
KVRI co-chair; presentations
KVRI co-chair; planning/review/edit/presentations of proposal
KVRI Board member; Sub-committees; review/edit/support
Co-chair KVRI; planning/review/edit/presentations; Sub-Committees
KVRI Board member; sub-committees
TMDL Sub-Committee; monitoring partner
Chip Corsi
208-769-1469
KVRI Board member; monitoring partner; review/edit/presentations
Bill Love
208-263-5104
KVRI - TMDL Sub-Committee; monitoring partner
Tony McDermott
Dave
Wattenbarger
Ranotta McNair
Linda McFaddan
Leigh Woodruff
Mike Gondek
208-263-2200
208-267-7466
KVRI Board member; review/support
KVRI Board Member; review/monitoring
208-765-7223
208-267-6701
208-378-5774
208-267-2707
KVRI Board member/planning/ writing/editing/review/presentations;
KVRI Board Alt. planning/writing/editing/review/presentations
KVRI TMDL Sub-committee
KVRI Partner; Sub-committees; project implementation/monitoring
Brian Holt
509-893-8030
KVRI Partner; Grizzly Bear Committee; Myrtle Creek HFRA Committee
Kurt Pavalet
Greg Hoffman
208-769-5000
406-293-7751
KVRI Partner; Sub-committee member
KVRI Partner/monitoring
Jim Cadnum
Patty Perry
208-267-5776
208-267-3519
Mitch Silvers
Sid Smith
Nancy Hadley
Dustin Miller
208-790-6669
208-667-6130
208-263-2010
208-334-2189
KVRI Board member/monitoring
KVRI Coordinator; proposal planning/writing/editing/review; presentations; monitoring;
meeting prep-coordination
Involved in proposal planning; meetings; presentations
Involved in proposal planning meetings; presentations
Project proposal implementation and monitoring; KVRI partner
Partner - KVRI Grizzly Bear Committee; Idaho Roadless Rule
CITY OF BONNERS FERRY Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative Letter of Commitment
Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI) was founded in 2001 under a joint powers agreement
between the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Boundary County, 10 and the City of Bonners Ferry, 10.
The KVRI has worked for nearly 10 years to foster public involvement and agreement on natural
resource management issues. KVRl's mission is to integrate existing local, state and federal
programs to effectively maintain, enhance and restore the social, cultural and natural resource
bases in the community.
The KVRI is comprised of 11 members and more than 20 partner organizations representing
Tribal, local government, private citizens, federal and state agencies, conservation and
environmental groups, representatives of local business and industry and research entities.
KVRI is guided by three co-chairs; one from The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, one from Boundary
County and one from the City of Bonners Ferry. KVRI serves as the primary forum for a broad
range of issue and utilizes a number of subcommittees (range of 10-30 members). The
Initiative's core members function as a Board which meets monthly and uses consensus as their
decision-making process. The subcommittees coordinate mUlti-party monitoring of specific
issues and conduct the bulk of the Initiative's technical work.
The KVRI together with its partners has worked for ten years on landscape strategy
development, grizzly bear conservation, fisheries recovery, wetlands and riparian conservation,
wildfire protection and forest restoration. This broad view of ecological health makes KVRI one
ofthe first collaborative groups in the nation to embrace an "all lands" approach. KVRl's
collaborative approach has led to a significant track record of successful projects which provide
a foundation for this Kootenai River Watershed CFLR proposal.
KVRI is committed to meeting the following goals and restoration objectives through
implementation of this Kootenai River Watershed CFLRP:
• Reduce the risk of unwanted wildland fire on the landscape.
• Increase the resilience of the landscape to the effects of unwanted wildland fire in the
event that such a fire occurs.
• Increase the resilience of the forested landscape to insect and disease epidemics.
• Protect and enhance wildlife habitat.
• Provide the opportunity for the utilization of a variety of wood products; including but
not limited to lumber, biomass and alternative energy sources.
• Increase the number of watersheds that are in fully functional hydrologic condition.
• Provide high-quality outdoor recreational opportunities.
• Reduce the impacts from invasive species.
This letter, signed by the members of the KVRI Board, solidifies this commitment:
y Commissioner
Dave Anderson, City of Bonners Ferry
Jim Cadnum, Landowner (Industrial)
Landowner Ranotta McNair, USFS-Idaho Panhandle National Forest
ndowner
Attachment E: Predicted Jobs Table from TREAT Spreadsheet
Employment (# Part and Full-time Jobs)
Indirect and Induced
Direct
Labor Inc (2009 $)
Total
Direct
Indirect and Induced
Total
Commercial Forest Products
Logging
16.7
14.2
30.9
714,675
523,033
1,237,708
Sawmills
15.3
20.9
36.2
740,234
697,572
1,437,806
Plywood and Veneer Softwood
-
-
-
-
-
-
Plywood and Veneer Hardwood
-
-
-
-
-
-
Oriented Strand Board (OSB)
0.0
0.1
0.1
3,478
2,819
6,297
Mills Processing Roundwood Pulp Wood
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other Timber Products
-
-
-
-
-
-
Facilities Processing Residue From Sawmills
6.3
18.9
25.2
577,065
500,391
1,077,456
Facilities Processing Residue From Plywood/Veneer
-
-
-
-
-
Biomass--Cogen
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Commercial Forest Products
38.3
54.1
92.5
2,035,452
1,723,814
3,759,266
Facilities, Watershed, Roads and Trails
2.5
1.4
3.9
99,750.9
52,219.8
151,970.7
Abandoned Mine Lands
Ecosystem Restoration, Hazardous Fuels, and Forest
Health
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.5
2.9
15.4
466,884.3
94,998.8
561,883.1
Commercial Firewood
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Contracted Monitoring
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Other Project Activities
14.9
4.4
19.3
566,635
147,219
713,854
FS Implementation and Monitoring
Total Other Project Activities & Monitoring
32.5
47.4
0.1
4.4
32.6
51.9
11,079
$577,714
2,740
$149,959
13,819
$727,673
Total All Impacts
85.8
58.6
144.4
$2,613,166
$1,873,773
$4,486,939
Other Project Activities
Attachment F: Funding Estimate
Funds to be used on NFS lands for ecological restoration treatments and monitoring that would be available in FY
2011 to match funding from the Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund
Fiscal Year 2011 Funding Type
Dollars/Value Planned
1. FY 2011 Funding for Implementation
$479,938
2. FY 2011 Funding for Monitoring
$20,602
3. USFS Appropriated Funds
$234,525
4. USFS Permanent & Trust Funds
5. Partnership Funds
$83,000
6. Partnership In-Kind Services Value
$10,301
7. Estimated Forest Product Value
$172,713
8. Other (specify)
9. FY 2011 Total (total of 1-6 above for matching CFLRP request)
$500,539
10. FY 2011 CFLRP request (must be equal to or less than above total)
$323,539
Funding off NFS lands associated with proposal in FY 2010 (does not count toward funding match from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund)
Fiscal Year 2011 Funding Type
Dollars Planned
11. USDI BLM Funds
12. USDI (other) Funds
13. Other Public Funding
Private Funding
Funds to be used on NFS lands for ecological restoration treatments and monitoring that would be available in FY
2012 to match funding from the Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund
Fiscal Year 2012 Funding Type
Dollars/Value Planned
1. FY 2012 Funding for Implementation
$580,238
2. FY 2012 Funding for Monitoring
$25,102
3. USFS Appropriated Funds
$215,985
4. USFS Permanent & Trust Funds
5. Partnership Funds
$120,954
6. Partnership In-Kind Services Value
$12,551
7. Estimated Forest Product Value
$255,849
8. Other (specify)
9. FY 2012 Total (total of 1-6 above for matching CFLRP request)
$605,339
10. FY 2012 CFLRP request (must be equal to or less than above total)
$398,721
Funding off NFS lands associated with proposal in FY 2010 (does not count toward funding match from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund)
Fiscal Year 2012 Funding Type
Dollars Planned
11. USDI BLM Funds
12. USDI (other) Funds
13. Other Public Funding
Private Funding
Funds to be used on NFS lands for ecological restoration treatments and monitoring that would be available in FY
2013 to match funding from the Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund
Fiscal Year 2013 Funding Type
Dollars/Value Planned
1. FY 2013 Funding for Implementation
$1,251,583
2. FY 2013 Funding for Monitoring
$65,397
3. USFS Appropriated Funds
$768,794
4. USFS Permanent & Trust Funds
5. Partnership Funds
$243,729
6. Partnership In-Kind Services Value
$32,698
7. Estimated Forest Product Value
$271,759
8. Other (specify)
9. FY 2013 Total (total of 1-6 above for matching CFLRP request)
$1,316,980
10. FY 2013 CFLRP request (must be equal to or less than above total)
$1,298,892
Funding off NFS lands associated with proposal in FY 2010 (does not count toward funding match from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund)
Fiscal Year 2013 Funding Type
Dollars Planned
11. USDI BLM Funds
12. USDI (other) Funds
13. Other Public Funding
Private Funding
Funds to be used on NFS lands for ecological restoration treatments and monitoring that would be available in FY
2014 to match funding from the Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund
Fiscal Year 2014 Funding Type
Dollars/Value Planned
1. FY 2014 Funding for Implementation
$1,289,131
2. FY 2014 Funding for Monitoring
$67,359
3. USFS Appropriated Funds
4. USFS Permanent & Trust Funds
5. Partnership Funds
6. Partnership In-Kind Services Value
7. Estimated Forest Product Value
8. Other (specify)
9. FY 2014 Total (total of 1-6 above for matching CFLRP request)
10. FY 2014 CFLRP request (must be equal to or less than above total)
$791,858
$251,040
$33,679
$279,912
$1,356,490
$1,337,859
Funding off NFS lands associated with proposal in FY 2010 (does not count toward funding match from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund)
Fiscal Year 2014 Funding Type
Dollars Planned
11. USDI BLM Funds
12. USDI (other) Funds
13. Other Public Funding
Private Funding
Funds to be used on NFS lands for ecological restoration treatments and monitoring that would be available in FY
2015 to match funding from the Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund
Fiscal Year 2015 Funding Type
Dollars/Value Planned
1. FY 2015 Funding for Implementation
$1,327,805
2. FY 2015 Funding for Monitoring
$69,379
3. USFS Appropriated Funds
$815,614
4. USFS Permanent & Trust Funds
5. Partnership Funds
$258,572
6. Partnership In-Kind Services Value
$34,690
7. Estimated Forest Product Value
$288,309
8. Other (specify)
9. FY 2015 Total (total of 1-6 above for matching CFLRP request)
$1,397,184
10. FY 2015 CFLRP request (must be equal to or less than above total)
$1,377,994
Funding off NFS lands associated with proposal in FY 2010 (does not count toward funding match from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund)
Fiscal Year 2015 Funding Type
Dollars Planned
11. USDI BLM Funds
12. USDI (other) Funds
13. Other Public Funding
Private Funding
Funds to be used on NFS lands for ecological restoration treatments and monitoring that would be available in FY
2016 to match funding from the Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund
Fiscal Year 2016 Funding Type
Dollars/Value Planned
1. FY 2016 Funding for Implementation
$1,367,639
2. FY 2016 Funding for Monitoring
$71,461
3. USFS Appropriated Funds
4. USFS Permanent & Trust Funds
5. Partnership Funds
6. Partnership In-Kind Services Value
7. Estimated Forest Product Value
8. Other (specify)
9. FY 2016 Total (total of 1-6 above for matching CFLRP request)
10. FY 2016 CFLRP request (must be equal to or less than above total)
$840,082
$266,329
$35,730
$296,959
$1,439,100
$1,419,334
Funding off NFS lands associated with proposal in FY 2010 (does not count toward funding match from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund)
Fiscal Year 2016 Funding Type
Dollars Planned
11. USDI BLM Funds
12. USDI (other) Funds
13. Other Public Funding
Private Funding
Funds to be used on NFS lands for ecological restoration treatments and monitoring that would be available in FY
2017 to match funding from the Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund
Fiscal Year 2017 Funding Type
Dollars/Value Planned
1. FY 2017 Funding for Implementation
$1,408,668
2. FY 2017 Funding for Monitoring
$73,605
3. USFS Appropriated Funds
$865,284
4. USFS Permanent & Trust Funds
5. Partnership Funds
$274,319
6. Partnership In-Kind Services Value
$36,802
7. Estimated Forest Product Value
$305,867
8. Other (specify)
9. FY 2017 Total (total of 1-6 above for matching CFLRP request)
$1,482,273
10. FY 2017 CFLRP request (must be equal to or less than above total)
$1,461,914
Funding off NFS lands associated with proposal in FY 2010 (does not count toward funding match from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund)
Fiscal Year 2017 Funding Type
Dollars Planned
11. USDI BLM Funds
12. USDI (other) Funds
13. Other Public Funding
Private Funding
Funds to be used on NFS lands for ecological restoration treatments and monitoring that would be available in FY
2018 to match funding from the Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund
Fiscal Year 2018 Funding Type
Dollars/Value Planned
1. FY 2018 Funding for Implementation
$1,450,928
2. FY 2018 Funding for Monitoring
$75,813
3. USFS Appropriated Funds
4. USFS Permanent & Trust Funds
5. Partnership Funds
6. Partnership In-Kind Services Value
7. Estimated Forest Product Value
8. Other (specify)
9. FY 2018 Total (total of 1-6 above for matching CFLRP request)
10. FY 2018 CFLRP request (must be equal to or less than above total)
$891,243
$282,548
$37,906
$315,044
$1,526,741
$1,505,772
Funding off NFS lands associated with proposal in FY 2010 (does not count toward funding match from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund)
Fiscal Year 2018 Funding Type
Dollars Planned
11. USDI BLM Funds
12. USDI (other) Funds
13. Other Public Funding
Private Funding
Funds to be used on NFS lands for ecological restoration treatments and monitoring that would be available in FY
2019 to match funding from the Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund
Fiscal Year 2019 Funding Type
Dollars/Value Planned
1. FY 2019 Funding for Implementation
$1,494,456
2. FY 2019 Funding for Monitoring
$78,087
3. USFS Appropriated Funds
$917,980
4. USFS Permanent & Trust Funds
5. Partnership Funds
$291,025
6. Partnership In-Kind Services Value
$39,044
7. Estimated Forest Product Value
$324,495
8. Other (specify)
9. FY 2019 Total (total of 1-6 above for matching CFLRP request)
$1,572,543
10. FY 2019 CFLRP request (must be equal to or less than above total)
$1,550,945
Funding off NFS lands associated with proposal in FY 2010 (does not count toward funding match from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund)
Fiscal Year 2019 Funding Type
Dollars Planned
11. USDI BLM Funds
12. USDI (other) Funds
13. Other Public Funding
Private Funding
Funds to be used on NFS lands for ecological restoration treatments and monitoring that would be available in FY
2020 to match funding from the Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund
Fiscal Year 2020 Funding Type
Dollars/Value Planned
1. FY 2020 Funding for Implementation
$1,539,290
2. FY 2020 Funding for Monitoring
$80,430
3. USFS Appropriated Funds
$946,335
4. USFS Permanent & Trust Funds
5. Partnership Funds
$298,940
6. Partnership In-Kind Services Value
$40,215
7. Estimated Forest Product Value
$334,230
8. Other (specify)
9. FY 2020 Total (total of 1-6 above for matching CFLRP request)
$1,619,720
10. FY 2020 CFLRP request (must be equal to or less than above total)
$1,597,473
Funding off NFS lands associated with proposal in FY 2010 (does not count toward funding match from the
Collaborative Forested Landscape Restoration Fund)
Fiscal Year 2020 Funding Type
Dollars Planned
11. USDI BLM Funds
12. USDI (other) Funds
13. Other Public Funding
Private Funding
Attachment G: Maps
CANADA
1
£
¤
KVRI - CFLRP
Mission Cr
Moyie
River abv
Feist Cr
Boundary Cr blw Grass Cr
CFLR Proposal Boundary
Boundary Cr
abv Grass Cr
95
£
¤
Kootenai R
abv Canada blw
Mission Cr
Grass Cr
American Cr
Canuck Cr
Round Meadows Cr
Smith Cr blw Cow Cr
Idaho State Assessment
Cow Cr
Mo
Priority Treatment Sub-Landscapes
R
yie
Very High
Parker Cr
Kootenai R
abv Parker Cr
blw Cedar Cr
Moderate High
Moderate
r
ive
Long
Canyon Cr
iver
ai R
ten
Smith Cr abv Cow Cr
Koo
High
Moyie
River abv
Placer Cr
Meadow Cr
Kootenai R abv
Cedar Cr blw
Fleming Cr
Trout Cr
Deer Cr
County
Highway
Lower Moyie River
Ball Cr
Fleming Cr
Kootenai R
abv Ball Cr
Blw Deep Cr
Managed Lands
National Forest System Lands
Bureau of Land Management Lands
Curley Cr
Myrtle Cr
Kootenai R
abv Bonners
er
nai Riv
Ferry
Koote
State of Idaho Lands
Forest Capital
Snow Cr
Potlach
BONNERS FERRY
Kootenai
R abv
Dobson Cr
Stimson
Enlarged
Area
State of Idaho
Kootenai
R abv
Sand Cr
Kootenai R
abv Cow Cr
¯
Private
2
£
¤
Kootenai R
abv Bonners
Ferry
Deep Cr blw Brown
Cr (incl Caribou
and Ruby Cr)
£
¤
95
IPNF
Lower Boulder Cr
(incl MF and EF
Boulder Cr)
Brown Cr (incl
Twenymile Cr)
Fall Cr
IDAHO
MONTANA
Boulder Cr
abv EF
Boulder Cr
Deep Cr abv
Brown Cr
57
£
¤
Deep Cr
abv McArthur
Lake outlet
BOUNDARY COUNTY
BONNER COUNTY
0
slg 2/1/2011
2.5
5
10
Miles
CANADA
KVRI - CFLRP
1
£
¤
Mission Cr
CFLR Proposal Boundary
Boundary Cr
abv Grass Cr
Idaho State Assessment
Priority Treatment Sub-Landscapes
Kootenai R
abv Canada blw
Mission Cr
Grass Cr
Smith Cr blw Cow Cr
95
£
¤
R
yie
Current Treatment
Moyie
River abv
Placer Cr
Treatment Units Currently under Contract
Lower Moyie River
Ball Cr
NEPA Pending
Fleming Cr
Kootenai R
abv Ball Cr
Blw Deep Cr
County
Highway
Myrtle Cr
Snow Cr
BONNERS FERRY
Bureau of Land Management Lands
State of Idaho Lands
Stimson
Private
¯
State of Idaho
IPNF
95
£
¤
Fall Cr
2
£
¤
Kootenai
R abv
Sand Cr
Lower Boulder Cr
(incl MF and EF
Boulder Cr)
Brown Cr (incl
Twenymile Cr)
Boulder Cr
abv EF
Boulder Cr
Deep Cr abv
Brown Cr
57
£
¤
slg 1/28/2011
BOUNDARY COUNTY
BONNER COUNTY
Kootenai R
abv Bonners
Ferry
IDAHO
MONTANA
Forest Capital
Kootenai
R abv
Dobson Cr
Kootenai R
abv Cow Cr
Deep Cr blw Brown
Cr (incl Caribou
and Ruby Cr)
Potlach
Curley Cr
Kootenai R
abv Bonners
er
nai Riv
Ferry
Koote
Managed Lands
National Forest System Lands
Deer Cr
Meadow Cr
Kootenai R abv
Cedar Cr blw
Fleming Cr
Trout Cr
NEPA complete, but not under Contract
r
ive
Kootenai R
abv Parker Cr
blw Cedar Cr
Parker Cr
iver
ai R
ten
Long
Canyon Cr
Koo
Smith Cr abv Cow Cr
Moderate
American Cr
Mo
High
Moderate High
Canuck Cr
Round Meadows Cr
Cow Cr
Very High
Enlarged
Area
Moyie
River abv
Feist Cr
Boundary Cr blw Grass Cr
Deep Cr
abv McArthur
Lake outlet
0
2.5
5
10
Miles
CANADA
KVRI Lower Kootenai
Watershed Restoration Activities
Ô9
Cr
ee
k
Boundary Cr blw Grass Cr
Grass Cr
Smith Creek
Uplands
771 acres
Bl
u
eJ
oe
Ô9
Boundary Cr
abv Grass Cr
CFLR Proposal Boundary
Boundary Creek
Overlook
20 acres
Ô9
Idaho State Assessment
Smith Cr blw Cow Cr
Kootenai R
abv Canada blw
Mission Cr
Round Meadows Cr
Trout Cr
Moyie
River abv
Placer Cr
Lower Moyie River
Kootenai R
abv Ball Cr
Blw Deep Cr
Fleming Cr
Kootenai R
abv Bonners
Ferry
Highway
Snow Cr
BONNERS FERRY
IPNF
Private
Ô9 Ô9
Fall Cr
Ô9
ee
k
Deep Cr abv
Brown Cr
slg 2/1/2011
57
£
¤
BOUNDARY COUNTY
BONNER COUNTY
Ô9
Ô9
De
ep
Deep Cr
abv McArthur
Lake outlet
Ô9
re
ek
Boulder Cr
abv EF
Boulder Cr
Ô9
Ô9
Ô9
0
2.5
Kootenai R
abv Bonners
Ferry
Lower Boulder Cr
(incl MF and EF
Boulder Cr)
Mile C
Ô9
Cr
See Attachments
Twenty
er
iv
State of Idaho
Brown Cr (incl
Twenymile Cr)
Kootenai
R abv
Sand Cr
R
ai
Enlarged
Area
Kootenai R
abv Cow Cr
en
¯
State of Idaho Lands
95
£
¤
Ô9
B
ot
Bureau of Land Management Lands
Deep Cr blw Brown
Cr (incl Caribou
and Ruby Cr)
Clifty View Foothills
Forest Legacy Project
1,647 acres
2
£
¤
Ko
Ô9
National Forest System Lands
k
Kootenai
R abv
Dobson Cr
Ô9
Managed Lands
Curley Creek
110 acres
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho
Fish Hatchery
Kootenai National
Wildlife Refuge
Myrtle Cr
B
Curley Cr
IDAHO
MONTANA
Vital Ground Bear Projects
County
Deer Cr
Meadow Cr
Kootenai R abv
Cedar Cr blw
Fleming Cr
Ball Cr
TMDL listed Impaired Waters
Stimson
r
ive
Kootenai R
abv Parker Cr
blw Cedar Cr
Parker Cr
Burbot and White Sturgeon Recovery
Potlach
American Cr
R
yie
Long
Canyon Cr
Moderate
Forest Capital
Canuck Cr
Mo
Smith Cr abv Cow Cr
Moderate High
B
95
£
¤
iver
ai R
ten
High
9
Moyie
River abv
Feist Cr
Koo
Very High
þþ
Mission Cr
Weiler
43 acres
Cow Cr
Priority Treatment Sub-Landscapes
B
B
B
1
£
¤
5
10
Miles
Lower Kootenai Watershed Restoration*
PROJECT NAME
Kootenai River Restoration Project
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 319
20 Mile Creek Analysis
Title II Rural Schools
Grizzly Bear Conservation Education
TransCanada
20 Mile Creek Road
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 319
20 Mile Creek Fish Passage
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 319
Burbot Conservation Strategy
US Fish and Wildlife
Wildlife Conservation Easements
Forest Legacy Projects (7,512 ac.)
Facilitation of TMDL Plan
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
KVRI – Program Coordination
Soil Conservation Commission
Watershed Advisory Group (WAG)
Wetland Conservation Strategy
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Grant
Develop TMDL Document/Implementation Plan
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
Purchases/Donated Conservation Easements 834ac /110 ac.
*
Sample of Significant Ongoing & Funded Restoration Activities
FUNDING
$250,000
$40,000
$4,000
$60,000
$72,000
$294,600
$6,245,000
$30,000
$12,000
$7,220
PARTNER
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho; private landowners; KVRI;
Natural Resources Cons. Service; Soil Cons. District
Panhandle Resource Advisory Committee (RAC);
KVRI Forestry Committee; USFS
Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI) Grizzly
Bear Committee; Idaho Dept. of Fish & Game;
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho
USDA-Forest Service Idaho Panhandle National
Forests; Idaho Department of Lands
Soil Conservation District; NRCS; Boundary County;
Idaho Dept. of Fish & Game; Kootenai Tribe of Idaho
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho ; KVRI; Burbot Committee (16
agency partners)
Idaho Dept. of Lands; Vital Ground Foundation; The
Nature Conservancy
KVRI TMDL Committee; Idaho Dept. of Environmental
Quality; EPA
Sustainable Northwest
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality ; KVRI
TMDL Committee
$99,750 Kootenai Tribe of Idaho; KVRI /Wetland Committee
$7,500 KVRI; Kootenai Tribe of Idaho; TMDL Committee
-------
Vital Ground Foundation